The Journal of Positive Psychology
Vol. 7, No. 1, January 2012, 57–71
ORIGINAL RESEARCH REPORT
The preference for experiences over possessions: Measurement and construct
validation of the Experiential Buying Tendency Scale
Ryan T. Howella*, Paulina Pchelina and Ravi Iyerb
a
Department of Psychology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, USA; bDepartment of Psychology,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Downloaded by [Ryan T. Howell] at 20:33 10 February 2012
(Received 23 April 2011; final version received 21 September 2011)
There is growing support that money spent on experiential items increases an individual’s happiness. However,
there is minimal research on the causes and long-term consequences of the tendency to make experiential
purchases. Given the importance of experiential buying for improving well-being, an understanding of the
preference for experiential purchasing is imperative. Thus, we developed the Experiential Buying Tendency Scale
(EBTS) to measure habitual experiential purchasing. Across eight samples (n ¼ 9634), the EBTS was developed,
and shown to be reliable, valid, and predictive of consumer behavior and psychological well-being. An
experiential purchasing tendency was related to higher extraversion, openness, empathic concern, and reward
seeking. Further, non-materialistic values predicted a preference for experiential purchasing, which led to
increased psychological need satisfaction, and, ultimately, increased subjective well-being. The discussion
proposes that experiential purchasing may be a function of one’s sensitivity to rewards, emotional responsiveness
to events, and appreciation of the world’s beauty.
Keywords: well-being; happiness; consumption; materialism; experiential
‘Ever since selling linkexchange, I’d committed to living
by the philosophy that experiences were much more
important to me than material things’. – Tony Hsieh,
CEO of Zappos.com
Introduction
People generally believe that making money and
obtaining material possessions will improve their lives
(Kasser, Cohn, Kanner, & Ryan, 2007). However,
materialism has repeatedly been shown to be detrimental to well-being (Belk, 1985; Dean, Carroll, &
Yang, 2007; Howell & Hill, 2009; Kashdan & Breen,
2007; Kasser & Ryan, 1993; Richins & Dawson, 1992;
Van Boven & Gilovich, 2003; Wright & Larsen, 1993).
One recent line of research suggests that certain kinds
of purchases do have a positive impact on well-being.
Investing discretionary resources into life experiences,
rather than buying material possessions, makes people
happier (Carter & Gilovich, 2010; Howell & Hill, 2009;
Millar & Thomas, 2009; Van Boven & Gilovich, 2003).
Therefore, it seems purchasing decisions have a significant effect on happiness and may explain why
materialistic pursuits lead to lower well-being.
However, most research on materialism and wellbeing has focused on materialism as a trait or value,
rather than examining the link between one’s
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
ISSN 1743–9760 print/ISSN 1743–9779 online
ß 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2011.626791
http://www.tandfonline.com
general buying preferences and global assessments of
subjective well-being (SWB). Other researchers have
noted the limitations of focusing on the effects of a
singular purchasing experience, rather than on stable
preferences and long-term outcomes (Nicolao, Irwin,
& Goodman, 2009). Thus, the primary goal of this
study is to develop and validate the Experiential
Buying Tendency Scale (EBTS) in order to measure
an individual’s general desire to buy experiential rather
than materialistic purchases. Given the centrality of the
experiential buying construct to current well-being
research, a description of the experiential purchaser is
an important basic step (Rozin, 2001). We aim to
demonstrate the pragmatic utility of the EBTS by
describing an experiential buyer’s emotional, personality, and well-being profile and by linking an experiential tendency to behavioral choices. Finally, we test a
path model to determine whether a tendency to
purchase experientially mediates the negative relation
between materialism and global assessments of SWB.
Previous research on materialist and experiential
psychology
Belk (1985) describes materialism as a personality trait
comprised of envy, lack of generosity, and
Downloaded by [Ryan T. Howell] at 20:33 10 February 2012
58
R.T. Howell et al.
possessiveness, with materialists valuing financial security over other life goals. Materialism has also been
conceptualized as a cultural value, in which people
focus on the satisfaction of lower level needs, such as
physical safety, over higher-level needs, such as selfactualization (Inglehart, 1981). In addition, materialism has been defined as a central organizing value that
leads to three orientations: (a) the belief that possessions are a source of happiness, (b) the perception that
material goods indicate success, and (c) the view that
possessions are central in one’s life (Richins &
Dawson, 1992). Even though materialists assume that
possessions will allow them to experience happiness
(Belk, 1985), there are robust and negative relationships between materialistic pursuits, traits, and values
with well-being. For example, well-being is negatively
correlated with a materialistic personality (Ahuvia
&Wong, 2002; Belk, 1985; Richins & Dawson, 1992),
materialistic values (Burroughs & Rindfleisch, 2002;
Richins & Dawson, 1992), materialistic aspirations,
(Kasser & Ryan, 1993), and materialistic buying when
compared to experiential buying (Carter & Gilovich,
2010; Howell & Hill, 2009; Millar & Thomas, 2009;
Nicolao et al., 2009; Van Boven & Gilovich, 2003).
There may be several reasons why materialism has
been associated with lower levels of life satisfaction. An
important positive predictor of materialism is an
increased feeling of insecurity (Kasser & Sheldon,
2000; Maslow, 1954; Pyszczynski, Greenberg, &
Solomon, 1997). When individuals experience existential insecurity, for example, they may become more
materialistic as a way of coping and avoiding selfawareness (Mandel & Smeesters, 2008; Rindfleisch,
Burroughs, & Wong, 2009). In fact, materialism may
be a typical coping mechanism for managing anxiety
and insecurity, with money reliance serving as a
secondary buffer and defense mechanism against
negative life experiences after social support, the
primary buffer, has failed (Zhou & Gao, 2008). Also,
materialists’ lower life satisfaction levels may be a
result of having fewer social connections. For example,
materialists experience difficulty in establishing close
relationships (Kasser, Ryan, Couchman, & Sheldon,
2004) and rate their relations less favorably (Kasser &
Ryan, 2001). Because they express less empathy and
objectify people, materialists may feel alienated from
others (Kasser et al., 2004). Finally, Tatzel (2003)
demonstrates that those who are less materialistic are
also more experiential in their consumption practices,
which may be a mechanism that explains why nonmaterialists are more satisfied with their lives.
Compared to material purchases, individuals experience more positive emotions, happiness, and relatedness satisfaction when they allocate their resources
to experiential purchases (Carter & Gilovich, 2010;
Howell & Hill, 2009; Van Boven & Gilovich, 2003);
low and high materialists are just as happy with their
life experiences (Millar & Thomas, 2009). Further,
people are happier when they think about their life
experiences, rate life experiences as contributing more
to their happiness, and consider life experiences a
better use of money. Van Boven and Gilovich (2003)
formerly defined the difference between material and
experiential investments: experiential purchases ‘are
those made with the primary intention of acquiring a
life experience: an event or series of events that one
lives through’, whereas material purchases ‘are those
made with the primary intention of acquiring a
material good: a tangible object that is kept in one’s
possession’ (p. 1194). Although some expenditures are
not easily classified into this dichotomy, participants
and judges alike can identify the difference in these
purchase categories and reliably categorize purchases
as either material or experiential (Carter & Gilovich,
2010; Van Boven & Gilovich, 2003) and rate the degree
to which expenditures are material or experiential on a
continuum (Nicolao et al., 2009; Pchelin, 2011).
Recent work has attempted to understand why
experiential purchases may lead to greater happiness.
Howell and Hill (2009) demonstrated that there are
two paths from experiential purchases to greater wellbeing. First, life experiences satisfy the psychological
need for relatedness, which in turn, increases the
feeling of vitality, and ultimately leads to greater
happiness. Individuals tend to prefer and report
greater happiness for life events that are experienced
with others compared to solitary experiential purchases
and material items (Caprariello & Reis, 2010) – this
difference is due to the satisfaction of the need for
relatedness. Second, life experiences (as opposed to
material purchases) do not promote social comparisons because they are, possibly, more valued for
intrinsic rather than extrinsic reasons. When compared
to material purchases, individuals are less likely to
contrast their experiential purchases to other possible
experiential expenditures (Carter & Gilovich, 2010).
These explanations concerning improved social ties
and intrinsic motivations converge with research on
materialism and decreased SWB. This suggests that
experiential purchasing may be an unmeasured mediating variable in the materialism–SWB link.
While we know very little about why some
individuals tend to be experiential purchasers, we can
examine research on materialism (specifically the link
between materialism and insecurity) for possible explanations. For example, it is possible that material
purchasers are more risk averse, while experiential
purchasers may have more active reward response
systems, which motivate them to seek out life experiences. That is, rather than seeking out new positive
emotions, materialistic purchasers may instead be
attempting to address their own negative emotions,
such as anxiety about financial and physical insecurities (Belk, 1985; Inglehart, 1981; Kasser & Sheldon,
Downloaded by [Ryan T. Howell] at 20:33 10 February 2012
The Journal of Positive Psychology
2000; Maslow, 1954; Pyszczynski et al., 1997;
Rindfleisch et al., 2009) by acquiring goods that
allow them to make downward social comparisons
(e.g., Solnick & Hemenway, 1998). In contrast, experiential purchasers may be dispositionally less anxious
and their feelings of increased security may lead to an
‘upward spiral’ of experience acquisition and wellbeing, mirroring the processes described by
Fredrickson’s (2001) Broaden and Build Theory.
Based on this model, it may be that security leads to
less materialistic values (Belk, 1985), less materialism
leads to more experiential purchasing (Tatzel, 2003),
more experiential purchasing leads to greater levels of
psychological need satisfaction (Howell & Hill, 2009)
and SWB (Van Boven & Gilovich, 2003), and greater
SWB creates more security (Lyubomirsky, King, &
Diener, 2005). For this reason, determining an individual’s purchasing style (i.e., whether the individual
tends to buy relatively more material items or spend
money on life experiences) is necessary to better
understand the long-term consequences of habitual
experiential or material buying behavior.
This study
Because no validated experiential purchasing measure
exists, little is known about the chronic experiential
buyer. Without such an instrument, it is impossible to
create models to determine the long-term antecedents
and consequences of preferring experiential rather than
material purchases. Thus, the first goal of this study is
to develop and validate the EBTS by: (a) demonstrating the reliability and behavioral validity (e.g., examining an experiential buying tendency as a predictor of
daily discretionary spending decisions) of the EBTS
across multiple groups, (b) ensuring that measuring a
preference for experiential buying is not artifact of
social desirability as well as establishing construct
validity through informant reports, and (c) describing
the experiential buyer’s personality, emotional, and
well-being profiles. The second goal of this study is to
demonstrate the pragmatic utility of this approach by
creating a model of the long-term effects of experiential
purchasing.
Method: Scale development
The first author originally developed 60 items to
measure general and specific behaviors, which indicate
a material or experiential buying tendency. These items
were examined and evaluated by two focus groups. The
consensus from the focus groups was that there were
too many similar items and that 60 items was unnecessary to measure this construct. Thus, the first author
edited the items and deleted items that were similar.
The process resulted in 17 items being retained for the
59
first administration of the EBTS. In order to develop
the EBTS, a sample of undergraduates (for Sample 1
n ¼ 536) from San Francisco State University, Irvine
Valley College, and Old Dominion University were
recruited. All participants received course credit for
taking the survey. The sample’s mean age was typical
of a college sample (M ¼ 24.28 years; SD ¼ 8.26),
predominately female (69.5%) and ethnically diverse
(46.3% European-American).
Participants described their experiential and materialistic purchasing tendencies by stating their agreement with items (1 ¼ strongly disagree; 7 ¼ strongly
agree) developed to measure their general predisposition toward experiential living (e.g., ‘When I want to
be happy, I am more likely to spend my money on
material goods rather than activities and events’.) or a
preference for selecting specific life experiences or
material items of equal value (e.g., ‘In my daily life I
am more likely to spend $100 on a new outfit rather
than spend $100 on dinner at a nice restaurant’). Also,
participants rated how characteristic (1 ¼ not at all;
7 ¼ a great deal) their discretionary spending patterns
are to experiential buyers’ preferences (e.g., ‘Some
people generally spend their money on a lot of different
life experiences [e.g., eating out, going to a concert,
traveling, etc.]. They go about enjoying their life by
taking part in daily activities they personally encounter
and live through. To what extent does this characterization describe you?’) or materialistic buyers’ preferences (e.g., ‘Some people generally spend their money
on a lot of material goods and products [e.g., jewelry,
clothing]. They go about enjoying their life by buying
physical objects that they can keep in their possession.
To what extent does this characterization describe
you?’). Each participant answered a total of 17 items.
Results: Scale development
A principle components analysis (PCA) with oblique
rotation (promax) was performed by including all 17
items from the original EBTS. The Kaiser–Meyer–
Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy indicated
an adequate sample size, KMO ¼ 0.81 (with the
acceptable cut-off being any value greater than 0.50).
An analysis of the scree plot (Cattell, 1966) and factor
loadings indicated that a single factor solution would
be appropriate. Also, when we attempted to extract
two factors, the second factor had no items that loaded
onto the factor with a value higher than 0.60. PCA
demonstrated that four of the 17 items loaded onto this
primary factor, each with factor loadings of 0.60 or
higher – all other items loaded onto the first factor with
loading less than 0.60. We repeated the PCA again to
examine the factor loading with only these four items
and examined the factor structure across the three
different universities. Across each of the three schools,
60
R.T. Howell et al.
the single-factor solution was supported with all four
items loading onto the single factor. Thus, these four
items were selected to examine the internal consistency
of the potential EBTS. These four items were internally
consistent ( ¼ 0.78 for the sample, and 0.79, 0.74, and
0.78 for the three schools, respectively) and dropping
any additional item(s) would have decreased the
construct’s internal consistency. The final four items
and their three different response formats (all sevenpoint Likert scales) are presented in Appendix.
Downloaded by [Ryan T. Howell] at 20:33 10 February 2012
Method: Scale validation
In order to validate the final version of the EBTS six
additional samples (n ¼ 7102) were recruited. All participants volunteered, received course credit, were
entered into a raffle to win one of ten $25 gift cards,
or volunteered in order to receive feedback regarding
their scores on various psychological measures.
Sample 2 was recruited to replicate the reliability
and factor structure of the EBTS on a larger older,
gender-balanced, and non-student sample of internet
users. This sample was also used to examine the
relations between the EBTS and discrete constructs
related to positive and negative emotions. Participants
were 2653 respondents who completed the EBTS on
the yourmorals.org website. Participants typically
complete several out of the many (over 30 at the time
of this study) studies featured on the site in order to
receive feedback about their scores. As such, the
sample for each relationship examined in conjunction
with the EBTS is the entire sample’s subset that took
the EBTS. This represents a limitation in that we
cannot run some analyses that would be possible if all
participants completed all measures; however, it also
provides for some degree of cross-validation as subsamples are largely non-overlapping. Participants were
diverse in age (M ¼ 36.49, SD ¼ 14.75), well-educated
(76% had completed a college degree and 26% had
completed a graduate or professional degree), generally
liberal (59%), and included slightly more females
(52.5%). Participants completed: (a) the Behavioral
Inhibition System and Behavioral Activation System
(BIS/BAS) mini-scale taken from the International
Personality Item Pool (Goldberg et al., 2006), which
measures approach and avoidance systems activation
(Carver & White, 1994); (b) the Interpersonal
Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1983), which measures
four distinct aspects of empathy (i.e., personal distress,
fantasy, empathic concern, and perspective taking);
(c) the Engagement with Beauty Scale (Diessner,
Solom, Frost, Parsons, & Davidson, 2008), which
measures positive emotional reactions to natural,
artistic, and moral beauty; (d) the Experiences
in Close Relationships scale (Brennan, Clark, &
Shaver, 1998), which measures the participant’s
attachment style; and (e) the Disgust scale (Haidt,
McCauley, & Rozin, 1994).
Sample 3 was recruited to verify the reliability and
factor structure of the EBTS and to determine an
experiential buyer’s personality and well-being profile,
while specifically controlling for materialistic values.
Thus, to ensure that the EBTS explains unique
variance in SWB and buying behavior and is thus
related, but not fully overlapping with materialistic
values, the Material Values Scale (MVS; Richins &
Dawson, 1992; Richins, Mick, & Monroe, 2004) was
included. The MVS measures the degree to which
individuals endorse materialistic values. In Sample 3,
based on prior research on materialism and consumer
behavior, a variety of measures were included in order
to understand and validate the EBTS. In addition to
the MVS, participants completed the Big Five Mini
Marker scale (Saucier, 1994). To measure well-being,
participants completed: (a) The Satisfaction With Life
Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larson, & Griffin,
1985); (b) The Subjective Happiness Scale
(Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999); (c) The Basic Need
Satisfaction in Life Scale (Gagné, 2003), which is a
questionnaire that measures the psychological needs
(i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness) necessary for optimal well-being, and (d) a measure of
financial security (IFDFW, InCharge Financial
Distress/Financial Well-Being Scale; Prawitz et al.,
2006). Sample 3 included 3149 participants who were
students at San Francisco State University, volunteers
recruited from popular websites (e.g., Craigslist,
Facebook), or volunteers recruited by Old Dominion
University students in a different experiment. The
sample’s mean age was older than a typical college
sample (M ¼ 29.63 years; SD ¼ 12.65), predominately
female (72.4%), and ethnically diverse (50.9%
European-American).
Sample 4 was recruited to confirm the reliability
and factor structure of the EBTS. This sample was also
used to determine the relationship between the EBTS
with a behavioral measure of buying preferences. Our
behavioral measure of a preference for experiential or
material purchases occurred at the end of the survey
when participants were asked what type of gift card
they would like to receive as possible compensation for
taking the survey (a lottery was held in which one out
of every 100 participants won a gift card). Three gift
cards were considered materialistic (for Amazon.com,
Target.com, or their favorite mall) and three were
considered experiential (for a restaurant of their
choice, a movie theater of their choice, or
Ticketmaster.com). In models that predicted their gift
card selection, we controlled for materialistic values
(MVS; Richins & Dawson, 1992; Richins et al., 2004),
socioeconomic status (SES; using a proxy developed by
Howell, Kurai, & Tam, in press), and gender.
A total of 863 participants chose to participate in the
Downloaded by [Ryan T. Howell] at 20:33 10 February 2012
The Journal of Positive Psychology
raffle and where used for analyses. The sample was
older than a typical college sample (M ¼ 28.46 years;
SD ¼ 10.90), predominantly female (76.7%), and
European-American (61.4%). In exchange for participation, respondents were entered into the raffle.
Sample 5 was recruited to demonstrate the temporal stability (i.e., test–retest reliability) and behavioral
validity of measuring a person’s experiential buying
tendency. We predicted that individuals with an
experiential buying style would be more likely to
spend their money on services that are experiential
(e.g., a spa day, a dining experience, going to the
museum) or gifts (e.g., a donation, a present, etc.) as
opposed to non-essential goods, which are materialistic
(e.g., beauty products, jewelry, clothing, books,
DVDs). To test this hypothesis, we conducted a
4-day daily spending diary (from Friday to Monday
night). The test–retest reliability was examined by
requesting participants from Sample 5 to complete the
EBTS two times (two weeks apart) before they
completed their first diary. Sample 5 included 82
students at San Francisco State University who
received class credit for completing the diaries –
however, 12 participants failed to complete at least
three of the four diaries and were dropped from the
analyses. The sample’s mean age was of a typical
college sample (M ¼ 22.00 years; SD ¼ 7.11), predominately female (74.7%) and ethnically diverse (44.3%
European-American). At the beginning of the diary,
the participants read these instructions:
There are many ways in which people can spend their
money. We are interested in how you spend your
discretionary income and your non-discretionary
income.
Discretionary
spending
INCLUDES:
(1) Non-essential goods (e.g., beauty products, jewelry,
clothing, books, DVDs, a cell phone, iPod, television,
etc.); (2) Services (e.g., a spa day, a dining experience,
going to the museum, theater, a concert, travelling,
snowboarding, or a boat trip); (3) Gifts (e.g., a
donation, a present, etc.). Non-discretionary income
INCLUDES money spent on your: (1) Housing (e.g.,
mortgage, rent, maintenance); (2) Utilities (e.g., electricity, water); (3) Food at home (i.e., food and
nonalcoholic beverages purchased at grocery, convenience, or specialty stores); (4) Transportation (e.g., car
payments, gas and motor oil, public transportation/
parking fees); (5) Personal health (e.g., medical services,
prescription drugs, medical supplies). Did you spend
any money in the last 24 hours?
Those who spent money in the last 24 were required
to ‘check each option for how you spent your money in
the last 24 hours’ (with the eight options from the
instructions listed – e.g., non-essential goods, services,
etc.). To test our hypothesis, we recorded the percentage of days each participant spent money on any of the
different categories list above.
Sample 6 was recruited to address the possible
concern of socially desirable responding when completing the EBTS. Van Boven, Campbell, and Gilovich
61
(2010) demonstrated that individuals have negative
stereotypes regarding materialistic people. Thus, participants in Sample 6 were recruited to test whether a
preference for experiential buying is an artifact of
social desirability. In Sample 6, participants completed
the: (a) EBTS; (b) the MVS; (c) The Subjective
Happiness Scale; and (d) The Social Desirability
Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Sample 6 included
295 participants who were students at San Francisco
State University. The mean age was typical of a college
sample (82% reporting being 24 year of age or less),
predominately female (80.6%), and ethnically diverse
(only 37% European-American).
Sample 7 was recruited to provide informant
reports as an alternative method for establishing
construct validity (Rammstedt & John, 2007).
Informant reports also tend to be minimally influenced
by social desirability and other biases (Vazire, 2006).
In Sample 7, participants completed the EBTS and
recruited two individuals as informants. For the
informants the instructions (‘In this section of
the survey we would like to know more about the
purchasing choices your friend or family member
typically makes’) and items (e.g., ‘In general, when
he/she has extra money he/she is likely to buy a. . .’)
were such that the ratings were focused on the
participant. Sample 7 included 60 participants who
were students at San Francisco State University. The
mean age was typical of a college sample (M ¼ 25.12,
SD ¼ 7.21), predominately female (76.3%), and ethnically diverse (only 36% European-American).
Results: scale validation
Evaluating the EBS’s descriptive statistics, reliability,
and factor structure
The descriptive statistics were remarkably similar
(Table 1) across samples 2, 3, and 4 (M’s 4.55–4.58;
SD’s 1.21–1.25); also, in all three samples the EBTS
displayed a slight negative skew. The Cronbach’s alpha
across the three samples was consistent ( ¼ 0.75–0.77).
We examined the factor structure of the EBTS by
conducting a PCA across the three samples. For each
of the PCAs, the analysis demonstrated that these four
items formed a single factor solution with all four items
loading onto the same factor. Factor loadings were all
above 0.60 and the EBTS was able to explain 57–59%
of the variance in purchasing style across the three
samples.
The experiential buyer’s personality, well-being, and
emotional profiles
To describe the experiential buyer’s emotional profile,
in Sample 2, we examined the correlations between an
experiential or materialistic purchasing style (i.e., low
62
R.T. Howell et al.
Table 1. The factor structure, descriptive statistics, and reliability of the discretionary experiential purchasing tendency.
Factor loadings
Downloaded by [Ryan T. Howell] at 20:33 10 February 2012
Items
In general, when I have extra money I am likely to buy a
life experience
When I want to be happy, I am more likely to spend my
money on activities and events
Some people generally spend their money on a lot of
different life experiences (e.g., eating out, going to a
concert, traveling, etc.). They go about enjoying their
life by taking part in daily activities they personally
encounter and live through. To what extent does this
characterization describe you?
a
Some people generally spend their money on a lot of
material goods and products (e.g., jewelry, clothing).
They go about enjoying their life by buying physical
objects that they can keep in their possession. To
what extent does this characterization describe you?
Percentage of variance explained by first Eigenvalue
Sample size
Mean
Standard deviation
Cronbach’s alpha
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample 4
0.88
0.84
0.83
0.87
0.83
0.80
0.66
0.73
0.75
0.64
0.62
0.64
59.60
2653
4.55
1.25
0.77
57.53
3149
4.58
1.22
0.75
57.08
863
4.58
1.21
0.75
Note: aItem 4 is reverse coded.
scorers on the EBTS) and a number of discrete positive
and negative emotional constructs. In Sample 3, we: (a)
examined the correlation between the purchasing style
and materialism and (b) determined the correlations
between purchasing style and (1) the Big Five personality traits and (2) SWB with all correlations holding
materialism constant.
Materialistic purchasers scored higher on attachment
anxiety (e.g., ‘I worry a lot about my relationships’)
and higher on activation of the behavioral inhibition
system (e.g., they ‘begin to panic when there is
danger’). Materialistic purchasers also scored higher
on disgust sensitivity (e.g., ‘it bothers me to hear
someone clear a throat full of mucous’).
The emotional profile. Consistent with previous
research on the hedonic benefits of experiential purchases, we found positive relationships (Sample 2)
between an experiential purchasing tendency and
global self-assessments of constructs related to positive
emotions (Table 2). Specifically, experiential purchasers reported higher activation of their behavioral
attraction fun-seeking (e.g., they ‘like to act on a
whim’) and reward responsiveness systems (e.g., they
‘get caught up in the excitement when others are
celebrating’). Experiential purchasers reported greater
engagement with natural, artistic, and moral beauty. In
addition, experiential purchasers appeared to generally
be more emotionally affected, as they scored higher on
three of the four IRI subscales: fantasy, perspective
taking, and empathic concern.
As expected, there were consistent positive relationships between a materialistic purchasing style (i.e.,
low experiential buyers) and constructs related to
negative emotions. Those with a materialistic purchasing style scored higher on the fourth IRI subscale,
personal distress, (e.g., they ‘sometimes feel helpless
when in the middle of a very emotional situation’).
The personality profile. In Sample 3, the correlation
between an experiential purchasing style and materialism was significant and negative (r [3,147] ¼ 0.43,
p < 0.001). Therefore, because one goal of this study
was to determine the unique relations between
one’s purchasing style with personality traits and
SWB, all correlations controlled for materialistic
values (Table 3). Individuals with an experiential
purchasing tendency were extraverted, agreeable, and
open to new experiences. When we regressed purchasing style onto materialism and the Big Five personality
traits, the two strongest Big Five predictors of an
experiential purchasing tendency were extraversion
( ¼ 0.13, p < 0.001) and openness to experience
( ¼ 0.09, p < 0.001). Though increased agreeableness and consciousness as well as decreased neuroticism were still significantly predictive of purchasing
style, the sizes of their effects were all trivial
(s < 0.05).
The well-being profile. When we examined the relations between purchasing style and SWB (controlling
for materialism), it was demonstrated that an
63
The Journal of Positive Psychology
Table 2. Correlations between the experiential purchasing tendency and measures of emotional disposition.
Behavioral inhibition and attraction
Experiential
purchasing
tendency
BIS/BAS
anxiety
(N ¼ 414)
BIS/BAS
drive
(N ¼ 414)
0.22***
0.13**
BIS/BAS
fun seeking
(N ¼ 414)
BIS/BAS
reward
responsiveness
(N ¼ 414)
0.22***
0.25***
Empathy and disgust
Downloaded by [Ryan T. Howell] at 20:33 10 February 2012
IRI empathic
concern
(N ¼ 1321)
Experiential
purchasing
tendency
0.17***
IRI
fantasy
(N ¼ 1321)
IRI personal
distress
(N ¼ 1321)
0.09**
0.15***
IRI perspective
taking
(N ¼ 1321)
0.19***
Disgust
(N ¼ 1129)
0.12***
Engagement with beauty and experiences in close relationships
Engagement
with artistic
beauty
(N ¼ 442)
0.19***
Experiential
purchasing
tendency
Engagement
with moral
beauty
(N ¼ 442)
Engagement
with natural
beauty
(N ¼ 442)
0.27***
Attachment
anxiety
(N ¼ 846)
0.23***
0.14***
Attachment
avoidance
(N ¼ 846)
0.14***
Notes: Participants choose to participate in one or more of the multiple studies at YourMorals.org, such that each relationship
is reported based on a largely non-overlapping sub-sample.
*p 0.05, **p 0.01, and ***p 0.001.
Table 3. Partial correlations between experiential purchasing tendency and personality traits and SWB controlling for
materialistic values.
Personality traits
Experiential
purchasing
tendency
Materialistic
values
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
0.43***
0.17***
0.11***
0.04*
Neuroticism
0.07*
Openness
0.14***
SWB
Satisfaction
with life
Experiential
purchasing
tendency
0.13***
Happiness
Autonomy
Competence
0.18**
0.14***
0.16**
Relatedness
0.21***
Notes: The correlation between materialistic values and purchasing style is the zero-order correlation. N ¼ 3149.
*p 0.05, **p 0.01, and ***p 0.001.
Financial
security
0.00
64
R.T. Howell et al.
experiential purchase type was associated with
increased satisfaction with life, happiness, and psychological need satisfaction (i.e., more autonomy, competence, and relatedness; Table 3). Because of the
similarity in the correlations, we created a SWB
composite variable from life satisfaction and subjective
happiness. As expected, the correlation between an
experiential purchasing style and SWB was significant
even
when
controlling
for
materialism,
rab.c(3,146) ¼ 0.20, p < 0.001.
Downloaded by [Ryan T. Howell] at 20:33 10 February 2012
Behavioral validation of the EBTS
At the end of the survey, participants in Sample 4 were
given the choice to select the type of gift card they
would like to receive if they won the raffle (three gift
cards were experiential and three were materialistic).
Each participant’s raffle choice (coded ‘0’ for material
gift cards [for Amazon.com, Target.com, or their
favorite mall] and ‘1’ for experiential gift cards [for a
restaurant of their choice, a movie theater of their
choice, or Ticketmaster.com]) served as the behavioral
measure of purchasing preference.
To ensure that the ‘experiential gift cards’ were
indeed perceived to be more experiential and the
‘material gift cards’ more material we recruited 83
judges (62% female; Mage ¼ 34.77 years, SD ¼ 13.71;
age ranged from 18 to 81 years) from Mechanical Turk
to rate 36 different purchases (including the six gift
cards) for the extent to which each purchase (e.g.,
sporting goods, musical instrument, clothing, a dining
experience, travel, a $25 gift card for your favorite
mall, a $25 gift card to the restaurant of your choice)
was material or experiential. The judges read these
instructions: ‘Purchases can vary in the degree to which
they are tangible objects that you obtain and keep in
your possession (material) versus intangible events that
you live through (experiential). For instance, clothing,
jewelry and accessories, as well as items bought as
‘‘collectibles’’ might be considered purely materialistic
purchases, whereas a new guitar, golf clubs, or iPod are
material objects that provide experiences. Sometimes,
we spend money on pure experiences, such as dinner
and drinks with friends or a vacation.’ They were then
asked to rate the various purchases on a Likert-scale,
ranging from 1 (only material) to 5 (only experiential).
The mid-point of the scale (equally material and
experiential) captured qualities of both types. The
item order was randomized for each participant.
As expected, the judges’ ratings for the most
experiential purchases were outdoor activities
(M ¼ 4.35, SD ¼ 1.11), travel (M ¼ 4.34, SD ¼ 1.02),
and a dining experience (M ¼ 4.00, SD ¼ 1.22); the
purchases rated as least experiential, and thereby the
most material, were jewelry (M ¼ 1.42, SD ¼ 0.76),
clothing (M ¼ 1.64, SD ¼ 0.90), and beauty products
(M ¼ 1.80, SD ¼ 1.05). The three experiential gift cards
(a $25 gift card for the movie theater of your choice
[M ¼ 3.55, SD ¼ 1.39], a $25 gift card for
Ticketmaster.com [M ¼ 3.44, SD ¼ 1.39], a $25 gift
card to the restaurant of your choice [M ¼ 3.44,
SD ¼ 1.42]) were each rated as significantly (all
p’s < 0.001) more experiential than the three material
gift cards (a $25 gift card for your favorite mall
[M ¼ 2.52, SD ¼ 1.26], a $25 Target gift card [M ¼ 2.49,
SD ¼ 1.40], a $25 gift card to Amazon.com [M ¼ 2.37,
SD ¼ 1.33]). Further, there were no significant differences among the experiential ratings of the three
experiential gift cards or among the experiential ratings
of the three material gift cards. Finally, there was no
association between the experiential rating of the six
gifts cards with age, gender, education, income, SWB,
and buying tendency.
Logistic regression analysis was employed to predict the probability that a participant would select an
experiential gift card. We predicted the probability of
selecting an experiential gift card from one’s purchasing tendency, materialism, SES, gender, the interaction
between purchasing style and materialism, and the
interaction between purchasing style and SES (Table 4
reports the logistic regression coefficient, Wald test,
and odds ratio for each of the predictors). An omnibus
test of the model was significantly better at predicting
one’s raffle choice, 2(6, N ¼ 850) ¼ 23.08, p < 0.001,
than a model only including the intercept. The odds
ratio for experiential purchasing style indicated that,
when holding all other variables constant, experiential
purchasers were 35% more likely to select one of the
experiential gift cards. Thus, individuals with an
experiential tendency selected gift cards that were
rated as being more experiential than individuals with
a material buying tendency.
Table 4. Logistic regression predicting gift card choice from
experiential purchasing style, materialistic values, SES, and
gender.
Predictor
Constant
Experiential
purchasing
tendency
Materialism
SES
Gender
Purchasing
tendency
materialism
Purchasing
tendency SES
B
Wald 2
P
Odds
ratio
1.62
0.30
39.51
9.82
<0.001
<0.001
0.20
1.35
0.13
0.17
0.30
0.06
2.02
4.11
2.43
0.59
0.16
0.04
0.11
0.44
0.88
0.84
1.34
0.94
0.06
0.47
0.49
1.06
Note: All the predictors were standardized before being
entered into the model.
Downloaded by [Ryan T. Howell] at 20:33 10 February 2012
The Journal of Positive Psychology
65
Using Sample 5, we first examined the test–retest
reliability of the EBTS. The test–retest correlation for
the EBTS was 0.76 (p < 0.001); this relation was very
similar to the internal consistency reported in Table 1
and suggested that a preference for experiential buying
is stable over time. Next, we examined the behavioral
validity of the EBTS. The daily diary data demonstrated that on most days, participants spent money
(81.7% of the days completed, participants reported
spending money on either a discretionary or nondiscretionary expenditure). The most common expenditure was food for the home followed by services,
transportation, non-essential goods, and gifts. Next,
we examined whether an experiential buying tendency
was associated with the proportion of days that
participants spent money on these five frequent categories; it was determined that an experiential buying
tendency was associated with an increased number of
days in which at least one service (r [68] ¼ 0.25,
p ¼ 0.035), gift (r [68] ¼ 0.28, p ¼ 0.018), or transportation expenditure (r [68] ¼ 0.24, p ¼ 0.044) was
purchased.
Using Sample 7, we examined the self-informant
agreement on the participant’s degree of experiential
buying tendency. We first tested the informant–informant agreement (i.e., ‘consensus’; Vazire, 2006). The
correlation between the two informants for the experiential level of the participant was significant
(r [58] ¼ 0.26, p < 0.05) – consistent with consensus
correlation expectations between informants that typically range from 0.20 to 0.50 (Vazire, 2006). For this
reason, we averaged the two informant’s ratings to
form a mean informant rating. Next, we examined the
self-informant agreement. The correlation between the
self and the average of the two informants for the
experiential level of the participant was significant
(r [58] ¼ 0.40, p < 0.05) – again, this relation is similar
to the typical self-informant correlation when using
informant methods (with the typical magnitude of this
relation being between 0.40 and 0.60; Vazire, 2006).
Thus, these relations both support the validity of the
EBTS and minimize concerns over socially desirable
responding.
External validation: testing social desirability
correlations and peer ratings
Using Sample 6, we tested the possibility that a
preference for experiential buying is an artifact of
social desirability by examining the relationships
between an experiential buying tendency and materialistic values with social desirability. First, as was
demonstrated in the previous samples, the correlation
between an experiential purchasing tendency and
materialistic values was significant and negative
(r [293] ¼ 0.43, p < 0.001). Next, the correlation
between an experiential purchasing tendency and
social desirability was positive and significant
(r [293] ¼ 0.21, p < 0.001); though, the correlation
between materialistic values and social desirability
was stronger (r [293] ¼ 0.34, p < 0.001). Interestingly,
when we controlled for materialistic values, the partial
correlation between an experiential purchasing style
and social desirability was not significant
(rab.c[292] ¼ 0.07, p ¼ 0.21); however, when we controlled for an experiential purchasing style, the partial
correlation between materialistic values and social
desirability was still significant (rab.c [292] ¼ 0.27,
p < 0.001). Finally, we regressed subjective happiness
onto an experiential purchasing style, materialistic
values, and social desirability. In this model
(F [3,287] ¼ 11.17, p < 0.001; R2 ¼ 0.11) only an experiential purchasing tendency ( ¼ 0.15, p ¼ 0.02) and
social desirability ( ¼ 0.19, p < 0.01) were significant
predictors of happiness – when controlling for an
experiential purchasing style and social desirability,
materialistic values were not related to subjective
happiness.
Method: Pragmatic utility
Sample 8 was recruited to demonstrate the pragmatic
utility of measuring one’s experiential buying tendency
by testing a path model of the benefits of habitual
experiential purchasing on psychological need satisfaction and SWB. As suggested by the pattern of
correlations found in Samples 1–5, we tested a model
in which emotional stability predicts increased nonmaterialistic values, which predict increases in experiential buying, resulting in increased psychological need
satisfaction and SWB, with this increase in SWB
recursively promoting lower materialism and even
more experiential purchasing. Sample 8 included 1996
participants who were students at San Francisco State
University, volunteers recruited from popular websites
(e.g., Craigslist, Facebook), or volunteers recruited by
Old Dominion University students in a different
experiment. The sample’s mean age was older than a
typical college sample (M ¼ 29.44 years; SD ¼ 12.85),
predominately female (73.9%) and ethnically diverse
(45.7% European-American). In addition to the EBTS,
participants completed: (a) the MVS, (b) the Big Five
Mini-Marker scale (Saucier, 1994), (c) the Basic
Psychological Need Satisfaction scale (Gagné, 2003),
and (d) the Subjective Happiness Scale as well as the
SWLS (Diener et al., 1985). It should be noted that
previous research has proposed that materialistic
purchasing decisions may be a result of experiencing
chronic negative emotions, anxiety, or insecurity (e.g.,
Kasser & Sheldon, 2000; Rindfleisch et al., 2009),
and thus, in our model a neurotic personality trait
serves as a dispositional anxiety and insecurity proxy.
66
R.T. Howell et al.
Results: Pragmatic utility
Downloaded by [Ryan T. Howell] at 20:33 10 February 2012
Building a path model to explain the non-materialismSWB relation
Testing for mediation. Using Sample 8, we tested a
model predicting that non-materialistic values would
increase SWB through experiential purchasing. To test
for mediation, Preacher and Leonardelli’s (2001) fourstage criteria were applied. We began by testing a
simple mediation model, in which we predicted that
non-materialistic values (the predictor) increased experiential buying tendencies (the mediator), which
increased SWB (the outcome). In this simple mediation
model, we first found that even when controlling for
neuroticism, non-materialistic values were associated
with greater SWB ( ¼ 0.13, p < 0.001; satisfying the
first criterion for mediation). Second, when we examined the path from an experiential purchasing tendency
to SWB, even when controlling for neuroticism and
non-materialism, there was a significant direct path
( ¼ 0.17, p < 0.001; satisfying the second criterion);
also, there was a significant direct path from nonmaterialistic values to experiential purchasing
( ¼ 0.44, p < 0.001; satisfying the third criterion).
Finally, when controlling for experiential purchasing,
there was not a significant path from non-materialistic
values to SWB (satisfying the fourth criterion). Also,
there was no evidence for reverse causation –
specifically, when we tested a model in which SWB
mediated the path from non-materialism to experiential buying, there was no change in non-materialism–
purchasing style path (violating the fourth criterion).
Thus, these results support a simple mediation model
in which, controlling for neuroticism, increased nonmaterialistic values predict more experiential buying,
which leads to higher SWB.
Developing a path model to understand the nonmaterialism-SWB relation. In order to better understand why non-materialists may experience more SWB,
we developed a path model including neuroticism (our
dispositional anxiety and insecurity proxy), materialistic values, experiential purchasing, psychological need
satisfaction, and SWB (i.e., life satisfaction and subjective happiness). In building the path model, we
followed Stage, Carter, and Nora’s (2004) suggestion
that ‘theoretical knowledge on the part of the
researcher is critical to the successful application of
path analysis’ (p. 6). To follow this recommendation,
we proposed the theoretical model that neuroticism
would predict decreased non-materialistic values (supported by Johnson & Attmann, 2009), which would
then lead to greater experiential buying (Tatzel, 2003).
Greater experiential buying would then lead to greater
psychological need satisfaction (as suggested by
Howell & Howell, 2008 and supported by Howell &
Hill, 2009), which would increase SWB (Howell,
Chenot, Hill, & Howell, 2011; Ryan & Deci, 2001,
2008), and finally, a recursive path was added such
that greater SWB would also lead to reduced materialism via increased feelings of security (Lyubomirsky
et al., 2005; Mandel & Smeesters, 2008; Rindfleisch
et al., 2009).
We tested the path model’s fit by examining
different goodness-of fit indices (Hu and Bentler
[1999] for a good review of these indices).
Specifically, we examined the: (a) Normed Fit Index
(NFI), which demonstrates good fit when the NFI
value is above 0.95; (b) Tucker Lewis Index (TLI)
which has similar interpretations as the NFI; and
(c) the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) which demonstrates good fit when the
RMSEA value is below 0.05. The path coefficients
for the model are shown in Figure 1 (all path
coefficients are significant at p < 0.001). In this
model, we constrained materialistic values and experiential purchasing tendency such that neither had direct
effect on SWB. The indices of model fit demonstrated
excellent goodness-of-fit (NFI ¼ 0.99; TLI ¼ 0.99;
RMSEA ¼ 0.033 [90%] CI ¼ 0.011–0.058) and the
variance explained in SWB is 50%. This model
demonstrates that neurotics (i.e., individuals who are
chronically anxious and insecure) are likely to be more
materialistic and for this reason buy more material
items. Also, the relation between non-materialistic
values and SWB is completely mediated by an experiential purchasing tendency and psychological need
satisfaction. That is, the model predicts that nonmaterialists are more likely to spend their discretionary
income on life experiences, which increases the degree
of psychological need satisfaction they experience, and
results in higher SWB. Finally, this path model was
found to be recursive – greater SWB also leads to
increased non-materialism.
Discussion
Though there is growing support that spending money
on life experiences increases well-being (Howell & Hill,
2009; Van Boven & Gilovich, 2003), few, if any, studies
have determined the predictors of experiential living
nor have previous studies been able to assess the effects
of habitual experiential purchasing. Therefore, the goal
of this study was to develop a reliable and valid
measure of one’s preference for experiential purchasing
(the EBS). Using eight independent samples, the EBTS
was shown to be: (a) an internally consistent, valid, and
temporally stable single-factor measure of an experiential buying tendency that was not an artifact of
social desirability, (b) correlated with numerous
expected emotion-related (e.g., reward responsiveness,
engagement with beauty, and empathy), (c) uniquely
related to personality (extraversion and openness to
67
The Journal of Positive Psychology
Emotional stability
0.20
0.32
0.33
R2 = 0.15
Downloaded by [Ryan T. Howell] at 20:33 10 February 2012
Non-materialistic
values
R2 = 0.20
0.44
Experiential buying
tendency
R2 = 0.17
0.19
Psychological need
satisfaction
R2 = 0.50
0.61
Subjective wellbeing
0.08
Figure 1. The path model that tested the proposed theoretical model: (a) that neuroticism will predict decreased nonmaterialistic values (supported by Johnson & Attmann, 2009), (b) which will lead to greater experiential buying (Tatzel, 2003),
and (c) which will lead to greater psychological need satisfaction (Howell & Hill, 2009; Howell & Howell, 2008), which will
increase SWB (Ryan & Deci, 2001, 2008) and that greater SWB also leads to reduced materialism (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005;
Mandel & Smeesters, 2008; Rindfleisch et al., 2009). Because materialistic purchasing decisions may be a result of experiencing
chronic negative emotions, anxiety, or insecurity, in our model a neurotic personality trait serves as a proxy of dispositional
anxiety and insecurity. The indices of model fit demonstrated excellent goodness-of-fit (NFI ¼ 0.99; TLI ¼ 0.99; RMSEA ¼ 0.033
[90% CI ¼ 0.011–0.058]). All paths in the model are signification at p < 0.001.
experience) and SWB constructs even after controlling
for materialistic values, and (d) predictive of selecting
an experiential gift card as payment for study participation as well as daily spending on services, events,
and gifts. Finally, the EBTS demonstrated pragmatic
utility in that it allowed us to test a path model in
which individual differences in experiential purchasing
tendencies mediated the relationship previously found
between materialism and lower SWB. Further, this
path model was found to be recursive, in that greater
SWB also leads to reduced materialism, resulting in an
‘upward spiral’ of experiential purchasing and SWB
that explains how experiential purchasing benefits may
accrue over the lifespan.
How does the path model extend past research?
There have been numerous theories attempting to
explain the mechanisms that lead to materialists being
less happy with their lives, but only recently have studies
begun to consider purchasing tendencies. Van Boven
and Gilovich (2003) and others (e.g., Carter & Gilovich,
2010; Howell & Hill, 2009; Millar & Thomas, 2009)
have demonstrated that individual experiential purchases make people happier than individual materialistic purchases; however, due to the lack of a validated
measure for experiential buying tendencies, these experiential buying studies have not examined the possible
long-term benefits of a preference for experiential
purchases. For example, Nicolao et al. (2009) found
that participants were slower to adapt to negative
experiential purchases compared to negative material
purchases, leading them to consider the possibility that
habitual experiential purchasing may not necessarily be
associated with global assessments of well-being. The
current research suggests that this is not the case. Also,
even though our path model both replicates past
correlational work and supports the causal paths
suggested by past research, we believe these finding
are only the first step toward a general model to explain
why materialistic values have detrimental effects on
SWB. We strongly suggest that future models examining these relations include a wide array of daily financial
choices and monetary decisions to determine all the
economic mediators between materialistic values and
decreased psychological need satisfaction.
How emotional and personality profiles explain
buying preference
As the quote that begins this article shows, some
people report a preference for experiential purchases
and having a validated measure of this preference
allows us to begin describing these individuals.
Individuals’ desire for life experiences may be a
function of their emotional dispositions and personality traits. The combination of their responsiveness to
rewards (i.e., heightened activation of attraction to
Downloaded by [Ryan T. Howell] at 20:33 10 February 2012
68
R.T. Howell et al.
fun-seeking) and their personality (i.e., high extraversion and openness) may predispose these individuals to
choose life experiences rather than material goods. For
example, it may be that experiential purchasers are
driven by sensation seeking, which is mostly related to
extraversion’s excitement seeking facet and openness to
experience’s action and fantasy facets (Aluja, Garcia,
& Garcia, 2003).
Our data show that experiential purchasers have
more sensitive reward responsiveness systems. Because
experiential purchasers are more emotionally affected
by events and have a greater appreciation for the
world’s beauty, they may experience greater hedonic
rewards from life experiences and therefore be more
likely to seek out such experiences. In contrast, our
results demonstrate that material purchasers experience higher behavioral inhibition system activation,
more interpersonal distress, and higher attachment
anxiety in intimate relationships. These correlations
support past research demonstrating that materialistic
values are associated with experiences of general and
existential insecurity (Pyszczynski et al., 1997;
Rindfleisch et al., 2009). Further, these correlations
corroborate and extend previous work (Chang &
Arkin, 2002; Zhou & Gao, 2008), which demonstrated
that feelings of generalized anxiety, depression, insecurity, and social threat potentiate the motivation to
acquire material items. For these reasons, materialists
may experience more emotional stressors, especially
relational stressors, and cope with these stressors by
purchasing material possessions.
Experiential activities are inherently more social
(Caprariello & Reis, 2010; Van Boven & Gilovich,
2003) and for this reason fulfill the psychological need
for relatedness (Howell & Hill, 2009). Considering that
compared to material items, life experiences are likely
to result in more social engagement, it is reasonable
that extraverts prefer experiential purchases. Openness
to experience may be related to experiential buying due
to the diversity and variability associated with life
experiences. Unlike material purchases that are massproduced and easily replicated, every vacation, every
show, and every meal provides an individual with a
different experience that cannot easily be repeated
again. Another possible explanation for this personality profile is that experiences may be less predictable,
relatively more risky, and may have a greater outcome
uncertainty. This hypothesis is supported by research
showing that high extraversion and openness are
linked to increased risk propensity (Nicholson,
Soane, Fenton-O’Creevy, & Willman, 2005).
Finally, the Broaden and Build Theory
(Fredrickson, 2001) posits an evolutionary explanation
for positive emotions that fits our current model. In
times of stress or scarcity, it may be adaptive to narrow
one’s focus on security needs and make material
purchases that have a tangible function. However,
when security needs are met, it may be more adaptive
to broaden one’s experience and acquire new knowledge, skills, and relationships that often accompany
experiential purchases. These experiences, if they do
not arouse competing security concerns, may then
provide increased SWB with accompanying reductions
in feelings of anxiety and insecurity, encouraging
further experiential purchases, and resulting in the
‘upward spiral’ depicted in our model. In this way, the
benefits of an experiential purchasing tendency may
accrue over a lifetime and individuals may develop
stable purchasing habits. Thus, these results seem to
indicate that the reward or inhibition systems may be
underlying causes for experiential and materialistic
buying preferences, and ultimately, it may be that
chronic positive emotions lead to a preference for life
experiences, whereas chronic negative emotions lead to
a preference for material items.
Conclusion
Life experiences become part of who we are. They are
woven into our memories, shape our identity, and are
generally not replaceable or upgradeable. It comes as
little surprise, then, that past work has shown that
experiential purchases increase feelings of happiness.
People have measurable preferences for experiential or
material purchases. The EBTS allows researchers to
better explore the psychological ramifications of habitual buying preferences. Our results demonstrate that
individuals who are less materialistic are happier, likely
in part, because of how they spend their discretionary
income. It is hoped that the EBTS allows researchers to
better identify experiential and materialistic buyers in
order to examine when and why they prefer and benefit
from their respective purchasing styles. For example,
some goods may be thought of by different people in
different ways, and it may be the perception of what
one buys that may actually drive hedonic effects (e.g.,
see Carter & Gilovich, 2010, Study 6). Future research
should distinguish the features that differentiate life
experiences from material items and determine whether
perceptions of these features differ across individuals
with different buying tendencies. Being able to identify
and understand these tendencies is crucial if social
scientists are to realize their stated goals (e.g.,
Dunn, Gilbert, & Wilson, 2011) of helping improve
individual consumption patterns in ways that are
beneficial to SWB.
References
Ahuvia, A., & Wong, N. (2002). Personality and values based
materialism: Their relationship and origins. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 12, 389–402.
Downloaded by [Ryan T. Howell] at 20:33 10 February 2012
The Journal of Positive Psychology
Aluja, A., Garcı́a, Ó., & Garcı́a, L. (2003). Relationships
among extraversion, openness to experience, and sensation
seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 35,
671–680.
Belk, R. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the
material world. Journal of Consumer Research, 12,
265–280.
Brennan, K.A., Clark, C.L., & Shaver, P. (1998). Self-report
measures of adult romantic attachment. In J.A. Simpson &
W.S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Burroughs, J., & Rindfleisch, A. (2002). Materialism and
well-being: A conflicting values perspective. Journal of
Consumer Research, 29, 348–370.
Caprariello, P.A., & Reis, H.T. (2010). To do with others or
to have (or to do alone)? The value of experiences over
material possessions depends on the involvement of others.
Advances in Consumer Research, 37, 762–763.
Caprariello, P.A., & Reis, H.T. (2011). To do, to have, or to
share? Valuing experiences over material possessions
depends on the involvement of others. Manuscript submitted
for publication.
Carter, T.J., & Gilovich, T. (2010). The relative relativity of
material and experiential purchases. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 98, 146–159.
Carver, C.S., & White, T.L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition,
behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333.
Cattell, R.B. (Ed.). (1966). The meaning and strategic use of
factor analysis. In Handbook of multivariate experimental
psychology (pp. 174–223). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Chang, L., & Arkin, R.M. (2002). Materialism as an attempt
to cope with uncertainty. Psychology and Marketing, 19,
389–406.
Crowne, D.P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social
desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.
Davis, M.H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in
empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.
Dean, L., Carroll, J., & Yang, C. (2007). Materialism,
perceived financial problems, and marital satisfaction.
Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 35,
260–281.
Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larson, R.J., & Griffin, S.
(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
Diessner, R., Solom, R., Frost, N., Parsons, L., & Davidson,
J. (2008). Engagement with beauty: Appreciating natural,
artistic, and moral beauty. Journal of Psychology:
Interdisciplinary and Applied, 142, 303–329.
Dunn, E.W., Gilbert, D.T., & Wilson, T.D. (2011). If money
doesn’t make you happy then you probably aren’t spending it right. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 115–125.
Fredrickson, B. (2001). The role of positive emotions
in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56,
218–226.
Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and
autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement.
Motivation and Emotion, 27, 199–223.
69
Goldberg, L.R., Johnson, J.A., Eber, H.W., Hogan, R.,
Ashton, M.C., Cloninger, C.R., & Gough, H.G. (2006).
The international personality item pool and the future of
public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research
in Personality, 40, 84–96.
Haidt, J., McCauley, C., & Rozin, P. (1994). Individual
differences in sensitivity to disgust: A scale sampling seven
domains of disgust elicitors. Personality and Individual
Differences, 16, 701–713.
Howell, R.T., Chenot, D., Hill, G., & Howell, C.J. (2011).
Momentary happiness: The role of psychological
need satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(1),
1–15.
Howell, R.T., & Hill, G. (2009). The mediators of experiential purchases: Determining the impact of psychological
needs satisfaction and social comparison. The Journal of
Positive Psychology, 4, 511–522.
Howell, R.T., & Howell, C.J. (2008). The relation of
economic status to subjective well-being in developing
countries: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 134,
536–560.
Howell, R.T., Kurai, M, & Tam, L. (in press). Money buys
financial security and psychological need satisfaction:
Testing need theory in affluence. Social Indicators
Research.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes
in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria
versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6,
1–55.
Inglehart, R. (1981). Post-materialism in an environment
of insecurity. American Political Science Review, 75,
880–900.
Johnson, T., & Attmann, J. (2009). Compulsive buying in a
product specific context: Clothing. Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management, 13, 394–405.
Kashdan, T., & Breen, W. (2007). Materialism and diminished well-being: Experiential avoidance as a mediating
mechanism. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26,
521–539.
Kasser, T., Cohn, S., Kanner, A., & Ryan, R. (2007). Some
costs of American corporate capitalism: A psychological
exploration of value and goal conflicts. Psychological
Inquiry, 18(1), 1–22.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. (1993). A dark side of the American
dream: Correlates of financial success as a central life
aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
65, 410–422.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R.M. (2001). Be careful what you wish
for: Optimal functioning and the relative attainment of
intrinsic and extrinsic goals. In S.P.K.E. Sheldon (Ed.),
Life goals and well-being: Toward a positive psychology
of human striding (pp. 116–131). Goettingen: Hogrefe &
Huber.
Kasser, T., Ryan, R.M., Couchman, C.E., & Sheldon, K.M.
(2004). Materialistic values: Their causes and consequences. In T. Kasser & A.D. Kanner (Eds.), Psychology
and consumer culture: The struggle for a good life in a
materialistic world (pp. 11–28). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Kasser, T., & Sheldon, K. (2000). Of wealth and death:
Materialism, mortality salience, and consumption behavior. Psychological Science, 11, 348–351.
Downloaded by [Ryan T. Howell] at 20:33 10 February 2012
70
R.T. Howell et al.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L.A., & Diener, E. (2005). The
benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to
success?. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H.S. (1999). A measure of
subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct
validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137–155.
Mandel, N., & Smeesters, D. (2008). The sweet escape:
Effects of mortality salience on consumption quantities for
high- and low-self-esteem consumers. Journal of Consumer
Research, 35, 309–323.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York,
NY: Harper.
Millar, M., & Thomas, R. (2009). Discretionary activity and
happiness: The role of materialism. Journal of Research in
Personality, 43, 699–702.
Nicholson, N., Soane, E., Fenton-O’Creevy, M., & Willman,
P. (2005). Personality and domain-specific risk taking.
Journal of Risk Research, 8, 157–176.
Nicolao, L., Irwin, J.R., & Goodman, J.K. (2009). Happiness
for sale: Do experiential purchases make consumers
happier than material purchases? Journal of Consumer
Research, 36, 188–198.
Pchelin, P. (2011). In pursuit of happiness: When do purchase
experiences live up to expectations? (Unpublished master’s
thesis).
San
Francisco
State
University,
San
Francisco, CA.
Prawitz, A., Garman, E., Sorhaindo, B., O’Neill, B., Kim, J.,
& Drentea, P. (2006). Incharge Financial Distress/
Financial Well-Being Scale: Development, administration,
and score interpretation. Financial Counseling and
Planning, 17, 34–50.
Preacher, K.J., & Leonardelli, G.J. (2001). Calculation for
the Sobel Test: An interactive calculation tool for
mediation tests [online].
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S. (1997). Why
do we need what we need? A terror management
perspective on the roots of human social motivation.
Psychological Inquiry, 8(1), 1–20.
Rammstedt, B., & John, O.P. (2007). Measuring personality
in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big
Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of
Research in Personality, 41, 203–212.
Richins, M., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values
orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale
development and validation. Journal of Consumer
Research, 19, 303–316.
Richins, M., Mick, D., & Monroe, K. (2004). The
material values scale: Measurement properties and development of a short form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31,
209–219.
Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J.E., & Wong, N. (2009). The
safety of objects: Materialism, existential insecurity, and
brand connection. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1),
1–16.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E.L. (2001). On happiness and
human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and
eudemonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,
141–166.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E.L. (2008). From ego depletion to
vitality: Theory and findings concerning the facilitation of
energy available to the self. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 2, 702–717.
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of
Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 63, 506–516.
Solnick, S.J., & Hemenway, D. (1998). Is more always
better?: A survey about positional goods. Journal of
Economic Behavior and Organization, 37, 373–383.
Stage, F.K., Carter, H.C., & Nora, A. (2004). Path
analysis: An introduction and analysis of a decade of
research. The Journal of Educational Research, 98,
5–12.
Tatzel, M. (2003). The art of buying: Coming to terms with
money and materialism. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4,
405–435.
Van Boven, L., Campbell, M.C., & Gilovich, T. (2010).
Stigmatizing materialism: On stereotypes and impressions
of materialistic and experiential pursuits. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 551–563.
Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2003). To do or to have? That
is the question. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85, 1193–1202.
Vazire, S. (2006). Informant reports: A cheap, fast, and easy
method for personality assessment. Journal of Research in
Personality, 40, 472–481.
Wright, N.D., & Larsen, V. (1993). Materialism and life
satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer
Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior, 6,
158–165.
Zhou, X., & Gao, D. (2008). Social support and money as
pain management mechanism. Psychological Inquiry, 19,
127–144.
71
The Journal of Positive Psychology
Appendix. The EBTS
In this section of the survey we would like to know
more about the purchasing choices you are typically more
likely to make. A material item is something tangible, such as
jewelry or clothes. An experiential item is something that
is intangible, like going out to dinner or going on
vacation. Using the scale below as a guide, indicate your
preferences.
Item 1.
buy . . .
In general, when I have extra money I am likely to
1
2
A
material
item
3
4
5
6
7
A life
experience
Downloaded by [Ryan T. Howell] at 20:33 10 February 2012
Item 2. When I want to be happy, I am more likely to spend
my money on. . .
1
2
Material
goods
3
4
5
6
7
Activities and
events
Item 3. Some people generally spend their money on a lot
of different life experiences (e.g., eating out, going to a
concert, traveling, etc). They go about enjoying their life by
taking part in daily activities they personally encounter and
live through. To what extent does this characterization
describe you?
1
Not at
all
2
3
4
5
6
7
A great
deal
Item 4. Some people generally spend their money on
a lot of material goods and products (e.g., jewelry,
clothing). They go about enjoying their life by buying physical objects that they can keep in their
possession. To what extent does this characterization
describe you?
1
2
Not at
all
3
4
5
6
7
A great
deal